Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?

Previous
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Next
Last Post

7 months ago · Quote · #241
patrick1286

it really doesnt matter
7 months ago · Quote · #242
EpicBlunderMove

"When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground." ..Cersie Lannister

There are days I wish I could get my game up to being able to promote just one pawn. Having a game where I would promote two is a fantasy..
7 months ago · Quote · #243
cookiemonster161140

ChessSponge wrote:

FirebrandX wrote:

when I'm punishing someone for refusing to resign, I promote to rooks. Most immediately resign when they see I won't even give them a stalemate chance by using rooks instead of queens.

Depends on the person I guess. I've had someone try this on me once and I made sure to use every last second I had in my time while making the game last for as long as possible with my moves.

As long as stalemate is a tie, I will go until a person proves they can win with mate. If that person decides to waste my time during the process, I will waste theirs back. In the end I'm never bothered by it so whatever they're trying to prove by doing so isn't working and I've already set aside the maximum amount of time for the game before I started. So it would probably be best for them to just mate and get it over with rather than prove a point, they won't have taught me to resign when they want someone to.

actually under promoting to rooks or another piece won't prevent stalemate...there are still positions where stalemate may occur.

I once under promoted to a knight to deliver mate on the same move.

By the same token automatically promoting to a Q could deliver a mate or stalemate.

Depends on the position.
7 months ago · Quote · #244
chesstoimpress123

Take the quickest mate.
7 months ago · Quote · #245
ClavierCavalier

chapablanca2000 wrote:

BruceJuice wrote:

I don't think they always expect to win. In sports like football or basketball the teams will play on in one-sided games even though it's blatantly obvious that there is no way they can win the game. Perhaps they are bringing this over to chess.

Strong players know that one-sided games are usually a matter of technique or a science. But I think most people will see it as a game or sport instead of a science and they will play on until the end.

Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game.

Why wouldn't a sports team have the option to resign? Even if they can't resign, they could technically sit out the rest of the game.
7 months ago · Quote · #246
CalamityChristie

ClavierCavalier wrote:

chapablanca2000 wrote:

Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game.

Why wouldn't a sports team have the option to resign? Even if they can't resign, they could technically sit out the rest of the game

the more i read that, the more puzzled i get!
7 months ago · Quote · #247
rooperi

CalamityChristie wrote:

ClavierCavalier wrote:

chapablanca2000 wrote:

Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game.

Why wouldn't a sports team have the option to resign? Even if they can't resign, they could technically sit out the rest of the game

the more i read that, the more puzzled i get!

Some sports you can resign, concede, throw in the towel, whatever you want to call it.

Boxing, snooker springs to mind, maybe there's more.....
7 months ago · Quote · #248
CalamityChristie

i'm still wondering about the teams though
7 months ago · Quote · #249
gambiteer12

TheGrobe wrote:

The right, yes, but then that wasn't the question, was it?

To consider a legal move as unethical is silly.
7 months ago · Quote · #250
TheGrobe

Suggo?

Rude is not even close to the same thing as unethical.
7 months ago · Quote · #251
Scottrf

Is it unethical to ask for requests as to what I should promote to?
7 months ago · Quote · #252
AnthonyCG

This reminds me of a funny game I saw between provisional players:
7 months ago · Quote · #253
brisket

Why would we promote to a bishop? You could have simply done a rook or a queen and then checkmated the king easily.
7 months ago · Quote · #254
gambiteer12

TheGrobe wrote:

Suggo?

Rude is not even close to the same thing as unethical.

If it's not wrong for someone to promote their 5th knight, why should anyone take it as being rude? Is more than one draw offer rude? Is 2.Qh5 rude? What of silly sacks on f7? Is refusing a rematch rude? Is "gg" rude after a win? Is ommiting "gg" rude?

Ofcourse not. Engine-abuse and refusing to move are the only "rude" things one repeatedly comes across.
7 months ago · Quote · #255
TheGrobe

Well, technically refusing to move isn't illegal....
7 months ago · Quote · #256
SmyslovFan

The short answer is the obvious one:

If you have to ask if it's rude, it probably is.

Whether the rudeness is justified is another topic. Hence the +250 posts on this topic already.
7 months ago · Quote · #257
brisket

I think it depends on if you should be able to win easily with what you have, then yes, but if you are promoting a pawn because it is actually part of your strategy no it is not rude.
7 months ago · Quote · #258
bobyyyy

Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?

Is this a joke? Since when did trying to win become rude?

Sorry, but this is dumbest question I've seen here.
7 months ago · Quote · #259
Scottrf

I think they mean excessive amounts of pawns when you could just checkmate.

Your opponent has the option of resigning if it's that easy for you to win though.
7 months ago · Quote · #260
Trapper4

Yes, I find it extremely immature and disrespectful if your opponent promotes his pawns when he can win in a few more moves. But if he has, lets say, a knight and a bishop, it would be much easier just to promote it.